Present* 

PRINCETON,  N.  J.                           ty 

3>.T>. 

OTHER  HERESY   TRIALS   AND   THE   BRIGGS   CASE. 

Heresy  trials  seem  to  be  an  anachronism  in  our  age  and  country 
which  allow  the  largest  religious  liberty  consistent  with  pubic  order 
and  peace.  On  the  continent  of  Europe  they  have  ceased,  at  least  in 
the  Protestant  churches.  The  theological  professors  in  German, 
Swiss,  and  Dutch  universities  are  not  sworn  to  a  creed  or  profession 
of  faith;  they  are  not  responsible  to  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal,  and 
they  enjoy  the  widest  latitude  of  investigation.  But  in  this  country, 
the  theological  seminaries  are  the  creatures  of  churches ;  the  teachers 
are  appointed  and  supported  by  churches  or  by  their  representative 
boards, -on  the  basis  of  a  creed  which  they  have  to  subscribe  to. 

It  is  a  singular  fact  that  theological  ami  political  freedom  do  not 
progress  at  equal  pace.  England,  with  greater  political  freedom,  is 
more  orthodox  than  the  continent;  Scotland  is  more  orthodox  than 
England;  America  is  more  orthodox  than  Europe;  the  West  and  the 
South  are  more  orthodox  than  the  East,  in  our  country.  The  strictest 
Roman  Catholics  are  not  found  in  Italy  and  France,  but  in  Ireland 
and  in  the  United  States.  So  the  Episcopalians,  the  Presbyterians, 
and  the  Lutherans  of  this  country  are  less  liberal  and  progressive  than 
their  fellow-religionists  in  the  Old  World. 

Heresy  trials  will,  therefore,  from  time  to  time  take  place  in  those 
churches  which  hold  and  require  subscription  to  a  strict  orthodox 
creed.  They  occur  whenever  a  public  teacher  sets  forth  views  which 
are  inconsistent  with  such  a  creed  and  yet  have  sufficient  vitality 
and  power  to  command  a  respectable  following  and  to  disturb  the 
peace  of  the  denomination.  They  stir  up  all  the  bad  blood  of  theo- 
logical passions  which  are  the  deepest  and  strongest,  and  sometimes 
they  result,  in  division  and  schism.  Heretics  are  no  longer  tortured,  im- 
prisoned, and  roasted  as  in  the  Middle  Ages;  but  they  are  deposed 
and  expelled  from  their  denominations  if  found  guilty,  with  the  lib- 
erty to  join  any  other  denomination  willing  to  receive  them,  or  to 
found  a  new  sect  of  their  own.  But  they  are  usually  acquitted  and 
restored,  and  in  this  case  the  result  of  a  heresy  trial  is  larger  liberty 
and  progress.  This  has  been  the  experience  of  several  heresy  trials 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 


622  OTHER  HERESY  TRIALS  AND  THE  BRIGGS  CASE. 

Orthodoxy  and  heresy  are  relative  terms.  Orthodoxy  is  conform- 
in-  to  an  established  and  recognized  creed;  heresy  is  a  departure  from 
it.  The  term  "  orthodoxy  "  does  not  occur  in  the  New  Testament; 
"  heresy  "  is  mentioned  several  times  in  King  James's  version,  for  a 
..  word  which  means  "  division,"  "  party,"  "  sect."  The  revised 
•  ii  retains  it  in  1  Cor.  xi.  19;  Gal.  v.  20;  and  2  Peter  ii.  1. 
After  the  union  of  Church  and  State  in  the  days  of  Constantine  the 
ruling  church  of  the  Roman  Empire  was  the  orthodox  church,  and 
every  one  who  publicly  opposed  its  teaching  was  regarded  and  treated 
as  a  heretic.  At  the  present  time  Christendom  is  divided  into  many 
churches  and  creeds,  and  to  them  correspond  as  manj^  types  of  ortho- 
doxy. There  is  a  Greek  orthodoxy  which  conforms  to  the  seven 
ecumenical  councils  and  the  catechism  of  Peter  Mogilas.  There  is  a 
Roman  Catholic  orthodoxy  which  must  agree  with  the  Tridentine  and 
Vatican  standards.  There  is  a  Lutheran  orthodoxy  measured  lyy  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  an  Anglican  orthodoxy  which  holds  to  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles  and  the  Common  Prayer  Book;  a  Presbyterian  or 
Calvinistic  orthodoxy  which  conforms  to  the  Westminister  Confession 
and  Catechisms.  What  is  orthodoxy  in  one  church  may  be  heresy  in 
another.  Thus  the  Greek  church  holds  that  the  Filioque,  the  doctrines 
of  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  of  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  Pope,  are  heretical  innovations  of  the  church  of  Rome. 
Protestants  reject  these  and  other  dogmas  of  Romanism  such  as 
transubstantiation,  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  the  invocation  of  saints, 
purgatory,  indulgences,  as  anti-Scriptural  errors;  while  Rome  con- 
demns  all  the  distinctive  doctrines  of  Protestantism  as  heresies.  The 
Lutherans  regard  Zwingli's  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as  heretical; 
the  Calvinists  of  the  synod  of  Dort  condemned  the  Arminian  tenets 
concerning  predestination,  the  extent  of  atonement,  irresistible  grace, 
and  perseverance  of  saints,  as  errors,  which  were  adopted  by  the  Wes- 
leyan  Methodists,  as  truths.  Baptists  reject  infant  baptism  and  every 
mode  of  baptism  but  by  immersion. 

In  this  condition  of  conflicting  creeds,  who  is  to  decide?     Where 
is  the  infallible  tribunal?     The  Greeks  say,  the  ecumenical  councils; 
but  th'  Be  have  only  defined  the  dogmas  of  the  Nicene  and  Chalcedo- 
nian   creed,  and  have  ceased  since  787.     The  Roman  Catholics  say, 
>]»e  of  Rome;  but  the  Pope  of  Rome  was  not  declared  infallible 
7".  and    P.  >]>e  Tlonorius  III.  was  condemned  as  a  heretic  both 
i  ouncil  and  by  several  popes.     Thus  we  have  coun- 
cil contradicting  council  and  popes  contradicting  popes.     Evangelical 


OTHER  HERESY  TRIALS  AND  THE  BRIGGS  CASE.  623 

Protestants  say,  the  Bible;  but  the  Bible  is  claimed  by  all  churches 
and  sects,  and  who  is  to  decide  between  their  various  interpretations? 
The  Rationalists  say,  the  reason;  but  whose  reason?  Where  there 
are  six  Rationalists  there  are  seven  reasons. 

Here,  then,  comes  in  the  whole  question  of  the  relationship  be- 
tween the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason,  and  this  is  one  of  the 
most  important  questions  raised  by  the  Briggs  trial.  Of  all  the 
Protestant  denominations  in  this  country  the  Presbyterian  is  the  most 
orthodox  and  has  the  most  rigorous  creed  (the  Westminster  Confes- 
sion), which  carries  the  ponderous  weight  of  the  metaphysical  and 
polemical  theology  of  the  seventeenth  century.  Hence  she  has  had 
more  heresy  trials  than  any  other  church  in  America.  Three  of  these 
trials  have  a  historic  interest  beyond  the  limits  of  that  denomination, 
and  involve  divines  of  national  repute.  We  shall  give  a  brief  account 
of  them,  dwelling  mostly  on  the  last,  which  is  still  in  progress. 

Dr.  Lyman  Beecher,  the  father  of  the  world-renowned  family  of 
that  name,  was  in  his  day  the  greatest  preacher  in  New  England,  and 
chief  champion  of  Trinitarian  orthodoxy  against  Unitarianism,  but 
somewhat  erratic  and  eccentric  in  his  theological  opinions.  He 
was  called  from  Boston  as  Professor  of  Theology  to  the  newly  founded 
Lane  Seminary  at  Cincinnati  in  1882.  Dr.  Stowe,  his  son-in-law, 
labored  in  the  same  institution.  They  imported  New  England  notions 
and  measures,  which  seemed  to  conflict  with  the  Presbyterianism  of 
the  stricter  Scottish  type.  Dr.  Wilson,  pastor  of  the  First  Church  in 
Cincinnati,  charged  Dr.  Beecher  with  holding  and  teaching  Pelagian 
or  Arminian  views  on  free  agency,  total  depravity,  original  sin,  and 
regeneration,  contrary  to  the  Scriptures  and  the  Westminster  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  which  he  had  accepted  at  his  installation. 

The  trial  was  held  in  1835  and  continued  for  several  days  with 
intense  and  unabated  interest.  It  resulted  in  the  complete  vindication 
of  Dr.  Beecher  by  a  nearly  two-thirds  vote  of  the  Presbytery.  Dr. 
Wilson  appealed  to  the  Synod  and  was  again  defeated.  He  appealed 
to  the  General  Assembly,  but  asked  and  obtained  leave  to  withdraw 
his  appeal  in  obedience  to  the  wishes  of  his  friends  and  in  view  of  the 
approaching  trial  of  Dr.  Barnes,  which  involved  the  same  principles 
of  sympathy  with  New  England  theology  as  taught  by  Dr.  Ta}dor, 
of  New  Haven,  and  his  intimate  friend,  Dr.  Beecher. 

Albert  Barnes  was  one  of  the  most  learned,  worthy,  and  popular 
preachers  and  authors  in  the  United  States,  and  his  "Notes  on  the 
New  Testament "  had  an  enormous  circulation  (exceeding  a  million  of 


624  OTHER  HERESY   TRIALS  AND   THE  BR1GGS  CASE. 

copies)  in  America  and  in  England,  especially  among  Sunday-school 
t<  achers.  lie  studied  theology  at  Princeton,  entered  the  ministry  in 
I  825,  and  was  called  to  the  First  Presbyterian  church  of  Philadelphia 
in  1S30  (where  he  died  in  1870). 

Dr.  Green  brought  charges  against  him  in  Presbytery  for  heretical 
doctrines  preached  in  a  sermon  on  "  The  Way  of  Salvation."  The 
case  created  a  great  deal  of  commotion,  action,  and  counter-action. 
Dr.  Jenkins,  President  of  Lafayette  College,  at  Easton,  Pa.  (the  father- 
in-law  of  Stonewall  Jackson),  became  the  chief  prosecutor  of  Mr. 
Barnes  and  tabled  ten  definite  charges  of  errors  selected  from  notes 
in  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  Chief  among  them 
was  the  denial  of  the  legal  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  and  guilt  to  his 
posterity,  and  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  to  believers. 
Barnes  did  not  deny  hereditary  sin,  but  only  hereditary  guilt.  So  far 
he  sided  with  Arminianism,  as  also  in  regard  to  the  extent  of  the 
atonement.  The  Synod  of  Pennsylvania  condemned  the  alleged  errors 
and  suspended  Barnes  from  the  exercise  of  the  functions  of  the  gospel 
ministry  until  he  should  recant  and  repent.  He  submitted,  and  sat  for 
a  whole  year  Sunday  after  Sunday  under  his  own  pulpit  listening  to 
the  preaching  of  a  stranger, — a  rare  instance  of  meekness  and  humil- 
itv,  which  reminds  one  of  Fenelon,  who  published  the  papal  condem- 
nation of  his  own  book,  the  "  Maxims  of  Saints." 

Barnes,  however,  could  appeal  to  a  higher  earthly  tribunal,  which 
Fenelon  could  not.  That  was  the  General  Assembly  which  met  at 
Pittsburg  in  1836.  This  Assembly  spent  a  whole  week  in  hearing 
his  case  and  sustained  the  appeal  by  a  vote  of  131-  to  96,  and  by  a  still 
more  decisive  vote  restored  him  to  the  active  ministry. 

But  the  agitation  between  Old  and  New  School  theology  continued 
with  increasing  force  and  animosity,  and  ended  in  a  division.  The 
General  Assembly  of  Philadelphia  in  1837  abrogated  the  Plan  of 
Union  between  the  Presbyterians  and  the  Congregationalists  (dating 
from  1801)  as  "  unnatural  and  unconstitutional,"  without  consulting 
the  oilier  party.  The  same  Assembly  cut  off  four  Synods,  the 
rn  Reserve,  Utica,  Geneva,  and  Genesee,  from  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States,  and  dissolved  the  third  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia  to  which  Dr.  Barnes  belonged — all  without  a  hearing  and 
without  a  trial,  by  an  act  of  intolerance  worthy  of  the  Westminster 
Assembly  which,  in  connection  with  the  Long  Parliament,  deprived 
thousand  Episcopal  ministers  of  their  livings  for  the  sole  crime 
of  non-conformity. 


OTHER  HERESY  TRIALS  AND  THE  BRIGGS  CASE.  625 

These  exscinding  acts  split  the  church  in  two  branches  called  the 
Old  School  and  the  New  School,  which  held  the  same  standards  of 
doctrine  and  discipline,  but  differed  in  their  interpretation,  and  were 
to  all  intents  and  purposes  two  different  denominations.  Dr.  Beecher 
and  Mr.  Barnes  survived  the  opposition  and  are  numbered  with  the 
brightest  luminaries  in  the  horizon  of  American  Christianity. 

The  schism  in  the  Presbyterian  church  continued  for  more  than 
thirty  years,  but  was  happily  healed  in  1870  on  the  basis  of  the  West- 
minster standards  pure  and  simple,  leaving  the  question  of  interpreta- 
tion and  application  open.  This  reunion  was  inspired  by  a  truly 
Christian  spirit  of  love  and  harmony  and  is  one  of  the  noblest  events 
m  American  church  history. 

For  twenty  years  the  union  continued  unbroken,  and  a  new  gener- 
ation arose  which  almost  forgot  that  there  was  an  Old  School  or  a  New 
School.  Princeton  and  Union  were  on  the  best  of  terms,  and  united 
with  other  Presbyterian  seminaries  in  the  publication  of  a  "Review," 
which  for  ten  years  discussed  the  leading  theological  questions  and 
ecclesiastical  events  of  the  times  under  the  joint  editorship  of  profes- 
sors of  Princeton  (Hodge,  Patton,  and  Warfield),  and  a  professor  of 
Union  (Briggs).  The  "  Review,"  however,  gave  indications  of  a  grow- 
ing difference  in  theological  sentiment  concerning  the  inspiration  and 
authority  of  the  Bible  and  the  attitude  towards  the  results  of  "  the 
higher  criticism,"  so  called,  which  deals  with  the  Bible  as  literature 
and  freely  investigates  the  origin,  value,  and  canonicity  of  the  differ- 
ent books.  The  Beecher  and  the  Barnes  trials  had  to  do  only  with 
purely  American  questions  of  theology;  but  since  then  American 
theology  has  been  brought  into  close  contact  with  the  critical  and 
historical  researches  of  the  theology  of  Europe,  especially  Germany,  the 
great  workshop  of  the  Reformation  and  of  modern  Protestant  learning. 

In  1889  arose  the  revision  movement  which  demanded  important 
changes  in  the  Westminster  Confession,  especially  the  elimination  of 
the  doctrine  of  pretention  and  the  denunciation  of  the  pope  as  "the 
antichrist"  predicted  by  Paul,  and  of  the  papists  as  "idolaters." 
The  movement  spread  with  as  much  rapidity  as  the  reunion  move- 
ment had  done  twenty  years  before,  and  promises  to  result  not  only  in 
a  revision  of  the  old  confession  but  in  the  formation  of  a  new,  shorter, 
more  scriptural,  and  popular  creed,  that  shall  express  in  an  irenic, 
evangelical  and  catholic  spirit,  the  living  faith  of  the  present  age 
rather  than  the  faith  of  the  seventeenth  century. 

While  the  revision  movement  was  going  on,  ihe  peace  of  the  church 


626  OTHER  HERESY  TRIALS  AND   THE  BRIGGS    CASE. 

was  disturbed  by  another  heresy  trial  which  surpasses  even  the 
Beecher  and  the  Barnes  trials  in  importance  and  general  interest. 

Dr.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  the  hero  of  the  latest  heresy  trial  which  has 
attracted  the  widest  notice  of  the  secular  as  well  as  of  the  religious  press 
of  America,  was  born  in  the  city  of  New  York,  January  15,  1841,  and 
is  consequently  in  the  prime  of  manhood  and  usefulness.  He  studied 
in  the  University  of  Virginia  (1859-60),  and  in  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary  at  New  York  (1861-63)  under  Robinson,  Henry  B.  Smith,  and 
Hitchcock.  He  finished  his  theological  education  at  Berlin,  mainly 
under  Rodiger  and  Dorner  (1866-69),  and  familiarized  himself  with  the 
latest  phases  and  tendencies  of  German  theology.  After  a  short  pas- 
torate  at  Roselle,  N.  J.  (1870-74),  he  was  appointed  tutor  and  soon 
afterwards  Professor  of  Hebrew  and  Oriental  Languages  in  the  Union 
Theological  Seminary  (1874),  and  has  been  connected  with  it  for  the 
last  seventeen  years.  He  received  the  degree  of  D.D.  from  the  Uni- 
versity of  Edinburgh  at  its  tercentenary  in  1883,  which  he  attended 
as  a  delegate  of  the  Union  Seminary.  In  the  autumn  of  1890  he  was 
transferred  to  the  Edward  Robinson  chair  of  Biblical  Theology  (in 
the  modern  German  sense  of  that  term,  as  distinct  from  Ecclesias- 
tical and  Systematic  Theology).  He  had  been  teaching  this  branch 
since  1883  when  Dr.  Schaff  gave  up  the  remainder  of  his  lectures  on 
the  Old  Testament  (Critical  Introduction  and  Old  Testament  Theol- 
ogy); but  as  the  chair  was  only  recently  endowed,  as  a  distinct  pro- 
fessorship, by  the  liberality  of  the  venerable  Dr.  Charles  Butler,  the 
president  of  the  Board  of  Directors,  in  honor  his  friend,  trie  dis- 
tinguished Biblical  scholar  and  explorer,  Dr.  Edward  Robinson,  it 
was  deemed  proper  and  due  to  the  founder  to  have  a  formal  induction 
by  the  usual  solemnity  of  an  inauguration. 

Dr.  Briggs  accordingly,  at  the  request  of  Dr.  Butler,  delivered  an 
inaugural  address  on  "The  Authority  of  Holy  Scripture,"  January 
20,  L89L*  This  address  was  the  occasion  of  the  heresy  trial.  It  con- 
tain, 'd  little  or  nothing  but  what  Dr.  Briggs  had  previously  taught  and 
published  in  his  books  on  "Biblical  Study,"  "Messianic  Prophecy," 
and  "Whither?"  as  well  as  in  several  articles  in  the  late  "Fresby- 
teran  Review."  Nor  is  there  anything  in  the  inaugural  which  would 
disqualify  him  for  a  theological  professorship  in  any  university  of 
Europe.     On  the  contrary,  in  Germany  Dr.  Briggs  would  be  cla 

*  A  third  edition  lias  just  been  published,  December,  1891,  by  Charles  Scrib- 

York,  which  contains  also  notes  and  explanations,  the  charges  of 

.  the  response  thereto  b  tl     Presbj  tery  of  Now  York;  160  pages. 


OTHER  HERESY  TRIALS  AND  THE  BRIGGS  CASE.  627 

with  the  conservative  and  orthodox  rather  than  with  radicals  and 
rationalists.  He  is,  in  fact,  a  Calvinist  in  everything  except  the  ques- 
tions of  higher  criticism,  where  he  adopts  the  opinions  of  the  school  of 
Ewald  and  Wellhausen,  though  not  without  some  modifications,  and 
with  a  distinct  disavowal  of  rationalism.  He  goes  no  farther  than 
Delitzsch  in  his  last  concessions.  But  he  stated  his  views  on  the 
authority  and  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  higher  criticism 
in  such  a  defiant  and  exasperating  tone  against  what  he  called 
"  bibliolatry,"  that  the  inaugural  address  sounded  like  a  manifesto  of 
war  and  aroused  at  once  a  most  determined  opposition  on  the  part  of 
the  conservative  and  orthodox  press.  Even  some  of  his  best  friends 
deemed  it  unwise  and  uncalled  for.  It  is  this  aggressive  style  and 
manner  which  brought  on  the  fight.  The  inaugural  created  a  sort 
of  panic,  as  if  the  Bible  were  in  danger  and  the  way  opened  for  the 
teaching  of  downright  rationalism  in  a  leading  institution  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church. 

It  was  under  the  influence  of  this  panic  that  more  than  seventy 
Presbyteries  overtured  the  General  Assembly  held  at  Detroit  in  May, 
1891,  to  veto  his  appointment  or  transfer  to  the  new  chair. 

The  Union  Theological  Seminary,  founded  in  1836,  was  originally 
independent,  while  the  Princeton  Seminary  was  in  the  power  of  the 
General  Assembly  which  elected  both  the  professors  and  the  directors. 
But  under  the  influence  of  the  reunion  enthusiasm  in  1870,  the  Union 
nary  voluntarily  surrendered  a  part  of  its  independence,  and 
secured  to  Princeton  a  much  desired  measure  of  freedom  by  giving  to 
the  General  Assembly  the  veto  power  on  the  appointment  of  new 
professors;  not  meaning,  however,  that  the  veto  should  cover  mere 
transfers  of  a  professor,  already  a  member  of  the  Faculty,  from  one 
department  of  teaching  to  another.  Such  transfers  occur  frequently 
(I  know  of  three  in  my  own  case),  sometimes  in  the  middle  of  a  term, 
in  consequence  of  sickness  or  of  death,  and  belong  to  the  internal 
administration  of  an  institution  whose  directors  and  faculty  are  better 
able  to  judge  than  a  General  Assembly  composed  of  delegates  from 
all  parts  of  the  country  and  changing  every  year.  The  directors  of 
the  Seminary,  at  a  meeting  held  shortly  before  the  meeting  of  the 
General  Assembly,  recorded  their  views  on  this  subject. 

The  Assembly,  ignoring  this  difference,  ignoring  also  the  pub- 
lished statement  of  the  faculty  of  the  Seminary,  and  the  categorical 
orthodox  answersof  Dr.  Briggs  to  specific  questions  of  the  directors,  ex- 
ercised the  veto  power  with  an  overwhelming  majority  of  seven  to  one, 


628  OTHER  HERESY   TRIALS  AND  THE  BRIGGS  CASE. 

and  virtually  deposed  Dr.  Briggs  without  giving  him  a  hearing  and 
without  even  assigning  a  reason.  At  the  same  time  the  Assembly  ap- 
pointed a  committee  of  conference  with  the  directors  of  the  Seminary; 
as  if,  after  all,  the  Assembly  might  have  erred  in  its  action  in  the  case. 
The  proper  order  undoubtedly  would  have  been  to  confer  with  the 
directors  first,  and  to  act  afterwards  on  the  result  of  the  conference. 
This  might  have  led  to  a  peaceful  settlement.  This  was  the  course 
proposed  by  Dr.  Worcester,  of  Chicago  (since  called  to  the  chair  of 
Systematic  Theology  in  the  Union  Seminary),  and  advocated  with 
such  sound  arguments  that,  in  the  opinion  of  some,  it  would  have  been 
adopted  if  the  vote  had  been  taken  at  once.  The  specious  plea  of  the 
advocates  of  immediate  action  was  "  now  or  never."  It  is  the  same 
plea  which  induced  the  General  Assembly  of  1837  to  take  advantage  of 
an  accidental  majority  in  favor  of  the  exscinding  act.  In  a  representa- 
tive body,  like  the  Assembly,  the  majority  changes  with  the  constitu- 
ency. 

It  is  but  just  to  add  that  the  action  of  the  Assembly,  whether 
right  or  wrong,  was  taken  under  the  sincere  conviction  of  actual  dan- 
ger of  unsound  doctrine,  and  without  any  personal  ill-feeling  against 
Dr.  Briggs,  whose  learning  and  piety  were  freely  acknowledged  by 
his  most  decided  opponents.  In  this  respect  the  Assembly  differs  very 
favorably  from  former  Assemblies  in  similar  cases.  Christian  courtesy 
and  good  manners  have  evidently  made  progress  and  have  moderated 
the  odium  theologicum  and  the  rabies  theologicum,  from  which  the  great 
and  good  Melancthon  prayed  to  be  delivered. 

It  so  happened  that  a  Princeton  Professor  of  Theology,  the  learned 
and  venerable  Dr.  Green,  was  Moderator  of  the  Detroit  Assembly, 
and  that  the  president  of  Princeton  University,  the  Kev.  Dr.  Patton, 
was  chairman  of  the  committee  on  Theological  Seminaries,  which 
proposed  the  exercise  of  the  veto  power  and  is  immediately  responsi- 
ble for  the  whole  action. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  affair  unfortunately  assumed  the 
aspect  of  a  conflict  between  Princeton  and  Union,  the  two  leading  in- 
stitutions of  the  American  Presbyterian  Church,  which  have  hereto- 
fore labored  on  different  lines  within  respectful  distance,  yet  on  cordial 
terms  of  friendship  and  co-operation  in  the  service  of  the  same  church. 

The  directors  of  the  Union  Seminary,  insisting  upon  their  distinc- 
tion between  a  new  appointment  and  a  transfer,  and  being  satisfied 
with  the  general  soundness  as  well  as  the  scholarship  and  teaching 
ability  of   Dr.  Briggs,  who  was  known  to  them  from  seventeen  years' 


OTHER   HERESY   TRIALS  AND   THE  BRIGGS   CASE.  629 

experience,  disregarded  the  veto  of  the  Assembly  and  adhered  to  their 
former  action.  The  Assembly  had,  wisely  or  unwisely,  acted  on  its 
own  interpretation  of  the  agreement  of  1870,  and  the  directors  felt 
that  they  had  the  same  right  to  act  on  their  interpretation  of  the 
agreement  which  they  themselves  had  proposed. 

A  meeting  of  the  Assembly's  Committee  of  Conference  with  the 
Directors  of  the  Seminary  was  held  last  November,  and  another  one 
will  be  held  next  January.  Time  will  show  whether  they  will  come 
to  an  agreement  or  compromise  of  the  delicate  question  which  involves 
the  further  relation  of  all  the  Presbyterian  seminaries  to  the  General 
Assembly. 

Before  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly  at  Detroit  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York,  the  largest  in  the  country,  had  taken  Dr.  Briggs  in  hand 
under  the  influence  of  the  panic  created  by  his  inaugural,  and  re- 
solved, April  13,  1891,  to  try  him  for  heresy  as  a  member  of  that 
Presbyteryr  A  committee  of  prosecution  was  appointed  consisting  of 
three  clergymen  and  two  laymen.*  This  committee  reported  to  the 
Presbytery  on  October  5,  1891,  and  charged  Dr.  Briggs  with  teach- 
ing and  publishing  in  said  inaugural  address  "  hurtful  errors  which 
strike  at  the  vitals  of  religion  and  conflict  irreconcilably  with  and  are 
contrary  to  the  cardinal  doctrines  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  and 
contained  in  the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church."  Two  distinct 
charges  were  brought  against  him:  one  that  he  denied  the  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  the  infallibility  and  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures 
as  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice ;  and  the  other,  that  he  taught 
progressive  sanctilication  after  death. 

The  first  and  principal  charge  was  formulated  under  several  speci- 
fications as  follows.     Dr.  Briggs  is  charged  with  teaching: 

1.  That  "there  are  historically  three  great  functions  of  divine 
authority — the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason;  "  thus  making  the 
Church  and  the  Reason  each  to  be  an  independent  and  sufficient  foun- 
tain of  divine  authority.  (The  last  clause  is  an  inference  of  the  com- 
mittee not  justified  by  the  address,  and  expressly  denied  by  Dr.  Briggs.) 

2.  That  some  (like  Cardinal  Newman)  may  obtain  the  saving 
knowledge  through  the  Church. 

3.  That  others  (like  James  Martineau)  may  find  the  knowledge  of 
God  through  the  Reason. 

4.  That  the  temperarnen-ts  and  environments  of  men  determine 
which  of  the  three  ways  of  success  to  God  they  may  pursue. 

*Tlie  Rev.  Drs.  Birch,  Lampe,  and  Sample,  unci  Elders  John  J.  Stevenson  ami 
John  J.  McCook. 


G30  OTHER  HERESY   TRIALS  AND   THE  BRIGGS   CASE. 

5.  That  he  "  makes  statements  in  regard  to  the  Holy  Scriptures 
which  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  doctrine  of  the  true  and  full 
inspiration  of  those  Scriptures  as  the  'word  of  God  written.'  " 

6.  That  he  "  asserts  that  Moses  is  not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  that  Isaiah  is  not  the  author  of  half  of  the  book  which  bears  his 
name." 

7.  That  he  "  teaches  that  predictive  prophecy  has  been  reversed 
by  history  and  that  much  of  it  has  not  and  never  can  be  fulfilled." 

The  second  charge  is  that  Dr.  Briggs  teaches  "  a  doctrine  of  the 
character,  state,  and  sanctilication  of  believers  after  death,  which  irre- 
concilably conflicts  with  and  is  contrary  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  and 
the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church." 

These  charges  and  specifications  were  sustained  by  quotations  from 
Dr.  Briggs's  inaugural  address  and  controverted  by  a  mass  of  Bible 
passages  (mostly  irrelevant,  and  all  from  King  James's  version,  even 
where  it  is  decidedly  wrong)  and  by  whole  sections  of  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith,  including  the  twice  repeated  list  of  all 
the  canonical  books  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments.  The  report 
covers  forty-five  pages  in  print,  and  is  one  of  the  curiosities  of  Ameri- 
can theological  literature. 

Dr.  Briggs  responded  to  these  charges  before  a  special  meeting  of 
the  New  York  Presbytery  on  November  4,  1891,  in  a  masterly  legal 
and  logical  argument  and,  at  the  same  time,  in  a  tone  of  moderation 
which  charmed  his  friends  and  disarmed  his  enemies.  There  is  not 
an  offensive  nor  discourteous  word  in  the  whole  paper;  lie  spoke  fortiter 
in  re,  suaviU  r  in  medo.  lie  made  a  manly  and  Christian  confession  of 
deep  regret  if  he  "had  in  anyway,  directly  or  indirectly,  been  the 
occasion  of  disturbing  the  peace  of  the  Church,"  or  if  he  "had  given 
pain  and  anxiety  to  his  brethren  in  the  ministry,  or  to  the  people  of 
Christ's  church,  by  any  utterances  in  the  inaugural  address."  This 
tone  and  confession  more  even  than  the  ability  of  the  defence  made 
convert  .  and  accounts  for  the  result  which  was  a  virtual  vindication 
by  a  majority  nearly  of  two-thirds  (94  to  31).  The  resolution  of  the 
IV'  sbytery  is  as  follows: 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  having  listened  to  the  paper 
<>f  the  Rev.  I  diaries  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  in  the  ease  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America  against  him,  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  charges 
and  specifications  in  form  and  legal  effect,  and  withoui  approving  of  the  positions 
stated  in  his  inaugural  address,  at  Hip  same  time  desiring  earnestly  the  peace 
and  quiet  <>f  the  Church,  and  in  view  of  the  declarations  made  by  Dr.  Briggs 
touching  his  loyalty  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  Westminster  Standards,  and 


OTHER  HERESY   TRIALS   AND   THE  BRIGGS  CASE.  G31 

of  his  disclaimers  of  interpretations  put  on  some  of  his  words,  deems  it  best  to 
dismiss  the  case,  and  hereby  does  so  dismiss  it." 

The  Presbytery  did  not  indorse  the  views  of  Dr.  Briggs,  but  ac- 
cepted his  explanation  and  declaration  of  loyalty  to  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures as  sufficient  to  justify  a  dismissal  of  the  trial.  This  is  all  that  he 
and  his  friends  could  reasonably  expect  and  desire.  We  would  like 
to  hope  that  this  agitation  might  stop  here,  and  that  peace  and  good 
will  between  brethren  be  restored. 

But  the  controversy  is  not  yet  closed.  The  committee  of  prosecu- 
tion, which  claims  to  be  an  independent  party,  has  appealed  from  the 
decision  of  the  New  York  Presbytery  to  the  General  Assembly  which 
will  meet  next  May,  and  may  either  try  the  case  or  dismiss  it  or  send 
it  back  to  the  Presbytery  for  a  new  trial.  We  must  wait  the  issue. 
In  the  mean  time,  Dr.  Briggs,  Dr.  Brown,  and  Dr.  Vincent  are  deliv- 
ering lectures  on  the  points  of  this  Bible  controversy  before  crowded 
audiences  in  the  Church  of  the  Convenant,  in  New  York. 

The  response  of  Dr.  Briggs  is,  technically,  only  an  objection  to  the 
sufficiency  of  the  charges  and  specifications  "  in  form  and  in  legal 
effect,"  as  required  by  the  Presbyterian  Book  of  Discipline;  but,  in- 
directly, it  is  an  explanation  and  defence  of  his  inaugural  address  and 
is  sufficient  to  free  him  from  the  charge  of  heresy. 

1.  Dr.  Briggs  reasserts  his  doctrine  of  the  three  sources  of  divine 
authority  —  Scripture,  Church,  and  Beason ;  but  denies  that  he 
meant  to  co-ordinate  them,  as  charged.  He  always  taught  and  still 
teaches  the  cardinal  Protestant  doctrine  that  the  Bible  is  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  "The  Reason,"  he  says,  "is  a 
great  fountain  of  divine  authority,  and  yet  not  an  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice.  The  Church  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  author- 
ity, and  yet  not  an  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  The  Bible  is 
a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority,  and  is  the  only  infallible  rule 
.in< I  practice." 

The  Bible  is  the  shibboleth  of  Protestants,  but  is  much  higher 
than  Protestantism;  Church  is  the  shibboleth  of  Romanists,  but  it 
is  much  higher  than  Romanism;  the  Reason  is  the  shibboleth  of 
Rationalists,  but  it  is  much  higher  than  Rationalism;  The  Bible,  the 
Church,  and  the  Reason  are  one  in  God,  the  one  supreme  Source  of 
all  truth  and  authority. 

2.  As  to  questions  raised  by  the  higher  criticism  concerning  the 
authenticity  and  canonicity  of  the  several  books  of  Scripture,  they  are 
extra-confessional  and  of  modern  date.     They  did  not  exist  for  the 


632  OTHER  HERESY   TRIALS  AND  THE  BRIGGS  CASE. 

Westminster  Assembly  which  framed  the  Confession.  They  are  per- 
fectly legitimate  and  unavoidable  in  the  theological  class-room,  and 
must  be  decided  by  the  slow  process  of  Christian  scholarship.  Dr. 
Briggs  accepts — perhaps  too  hastily — the  views  of  the  liberal  wing  of 
the  German  critics  concerning  the  post-Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch,  the  post-Isaian  origin  of  more  than  one-half  of  the  proph- 
ecies under  the  name  of  Isaiah;  but  he  nevertheless  believes  in  the 
inspiration  and  authority  of  these  portions  of  the  Old  Testament  as 
fully  as  if  they  had  been  written  by  Moses  and  Isaiah.  The  authority 
of  Scripture  depends  upon  God  and  their  intrinsic  value,  not  upon 
man  and  the  authority  of  the  church.  Several  portions  of  the  Bible 
— as  the  Book  of  Job,  the  "  Orphan  Psalms  "  so-called,  and  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews — are  anonymous,  and  no  scholar  has  been  able  or  ever 
will  be  able  to  settle  the  question  of  their  human  authorship,  but  they 
are  as  much  inspired  and  canonical  as  any  other  book. 

8.  As  regards  sanctification  after  death,  Dr.  Briggs  denies  that  he 
holds  the  Eoman  doctrine  of  purgatory,  or  the  Andover  hypothesis  of 
a  future  (falsely  called  a  second)  probation.  lie  simply  teaches  the 
progressive  sanctification  of  believers,  as  distinct  from  immediate  and 
absolute  sanctification,  after  death ;  that  is,  he  holds  that  believers 
enter  the  middle  state  guiltless  and  sinless,  yet  not  so  perfect  as  to 
leave  no  room  for  continued  growth  in  knowledge  and  every  grace. 
Surely  there  can  be  no  reasonable  objection  to  such  a  view.  It  may 
not  be  quite  consistent  with  the  teaching  of  the  Westminster  standards, 
but  the  far  more  important  question  is  whether  it  is  scriptural  and 
true.  Modern  scholars  are  agreed  that  the  eschatology  of  the  Protes- 
tant Reformers  and  Protestant  Confessions  is  undeveloped,  negative 
rather  than  positive,  and  stands  in  need  of  improvement.  They 
denied  the  papal  doctrine  of  purgatory,  but  they  gave  us  nothing  better 
in  the  place.  They  ignored  the  middle  state  .between  death  and  resur- 
rection, and  identified  the  state  immediately  after  death  with  the  final 
state  after  the  resurrection. 

This  defect  has  affected  even  the  Protestant  versions  of  the  Bible 
which  confound  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  terms  for  the  middle  state,  or 
the  spirit  world,  the  region  of  the  departed  (Hades  and  Sheol),  with 
hell  or  the  state  of  torment  (Gehenna).  Hence  the  awful  word  "  hell  " 
occurs  twice  as  often  in  the  authorized  version  of  the  English  Bible  as 
in  the  Gre<  k  and  Hebrew  original.  The  revised  version  has  corrected 
this  mischievous  error. 

The  authority  of  the  Protestant  Confessions  of  Faith  is  limited  by 


OTHER    HERESY   TRIALS   AND   THE   BRIGGS  CASE.  633 

the  cardinal  Protestant  doctrine  of  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Bible. 
They  are  not  norma  uormaus,  but  norma  normala.  They  are  not  rules 
of  faith,  but  rules  of  public  teaching.  They  are  not  infallible,  and 
may  be  corrected  and  improved  by  better  statements  of  divine  truth, 
which  must  ever  be  the  first  and  last  aim  of  a  theologian.  Amicus 
Augustinus,  amicus  Calvinus,  sed  mag  is  arnica  Veritas. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  is  just  now  engaged  in  a  revision  of  the 
Westminster  Confession  and  will  undoubtedly  eliminate  from  it  cer- 
tain  obsolete  and  obnoxious  features,  as  divine  foreordination  of  sin  and 
death,  the  limitation  of  the  atonement  to  the  elect,  and  the  anti-popery 
clauses,  and  will  put  in  a  distinct  declaration  of  the  general  love  of 
God  to  all  mankind  and  the  sincere  offer  of  salvation  to  every  creature 
made  in  his  image.  This  will  be  a  serious  modification  of  high  Cal- 
vinism, though  not  of  the  Reformed  system  in  the  wider  historical 
sense.  The  church  has  a  perfect  right  to  make  such  changes  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  advance  in  liberal  scholarship.  She  changed  the  Confes- 
sion even  more  radically  a  hundred  years  ago  in  all  those  articles 
which  assumed  the  union  of  Church  and  State  and  made  it  the  duty 
of  the  civil  government  to  protect  orthodoxy  and  to  punish  heresy. 

This  is  not  an  opportune  time  to  stop  the  legitimate  progress  of 
theological  investigation  and  science.  Surely,  the  great  Presbyterian 
Church  of  the  United  States  should  have  room  and  to  spare  for  such 
scholars  as  Dr.  Briggs.  She  is  orthodox  and  conservative  enough,  and 
can  afford  to  be  tolerant  and  liberal  without  running  any  risk.  She 
has  too  much  intelligence,  good  sense,  and  solid  piety  to  be  thrown 
off  her  balance.  Christian  scholars  who  combine  faith  with  learning 
and  critical  ability  are  rare  and  now  more  needed  than  ever,  to 
disentangle  the  Scriptures  from  traditional  embarrassments  such 
as  the  theory  of  a  literal  inspiration  or  dictation,  and  the  absolute 
inerrancy  of  the  original  autographs  which  nobody  has  ever  seen 
or  will  see— for  they  are  irretrievably  lost.  These  are  human  fictions 
contradicted  by  undoubted  facts,  and  make  it  impossible  to  defend 
the  Bible  against  the  objections  of  critics,  historians,  and  scientists. 
The  Bible  is  independent  of  all  human  theories  of  inspiration  and 
stands  upon  the  impregnable  rock  of  truth.  It  is  not  a  manual 
of  geology,  or  biology,  or  astronomy,  or  chronology,  or  history,  or 
science.  Even  the  Pope  of  Home  docs  not  claim  infallibility  in  any 
of  these  departments.  The  Bible  is  a  book  of  religion,  a  rule  of 
faith  and  duty,  no  more,  no  less;  and  as  such  it  can  and  will  main- 
tain its  authority  and  power  to  the  end  of  time.  y/ 

Philip  Schaff. 


Date  Due 


